Right to work states - MI (Page 3)

Yeah.... I'll be checking the build dates of any cars I buy in the next few years.   Oh, December '12?   Nevermind! 

Those studies always focus on pay, and not on cost-of-living.   Generally you find that while pay is higher by 10% or so in a "Union" state, that cost of living is even higher, like 20% or so. 

Of course, those are averages and not true across the board. 

But, since people generally only understand the money in their paycheck, and not some esoteric idea like  "cost of living" or "purchasing power" etc, etc... the argument that you're better off in a RTW state gets lost.   Oh well.  

From Zero Hedge

There is "no point" earning less in a minimum wage job is how Leanna Broderick - 20-year-old mother of two - justifies the benefits she claims adding that "she is better off on benefits" and would not get a job unless she could continue her luxury lifestyle, which includes designer outfits, holidays abroad, clubbing, lunches out and expensive gifts for her daughters Zelekah, two, and Zakirah, one. The UK's Daily Mail reports that Leanna saved GBP2,500 (~USD4,000) last year while living on GBP15,480 (~USD25,000) which she intends to spend on iPads and gold earrings for her kids - adding that "This way, taxpayers know I'm raising two well-brought-up kids." However, all is not rosy in Leanna's house as she fears next year may not be so lavish because of Government benefits cuts. "I'm not against the cuts, but only if the Government helps me find a job," she said, "In the meantime, I’ll stay on benefits and get as much as I can out of it."

There was no source given for that stat, but studies (such as this one) have actually shown the opposite.  They find that RTW states have a higher number of self-employed and lower # of bankruptcies but overall, there is no difference in the amt of business creation.  They also find that RTW states have lower per capita income and wages although the owners income is higher.  So basically, the RTW laws act to redistribute income from the workers to the owners, which makes sense since there are no longer unions pressing for higher wages, etc.  But in reality the RTW laws are more about politics than economics.  Dems get a big portion of their support from unions, so presumably anything that hurts unions would also hurt dems.

Do you have any idea how much money the "unions" over all bring in? The owners take in more, but the union's money comes out of the peoples money too.

To me, it seems like back in the day, when unions and the likes of Ford came about and wanted to build things everyone could afford... that worked well when we were the only industrial manufacturing base in the world. I mean the people were consumers like today of oil and energy and cars and leisure pursuits, but we as a country produced a metric crap ton of goods and the rest of the world bought them.

Today thought that base is declining and we are back to competing with countries that were like us back then. They do not care about anything but profits and making them on the backs of low paid workers and zero environmental regs. So in that light, the wages here are naturally going to suffer. At some point those other country's workers will have enough and things can change, but in the meantime unions continuing to "demand" things remain as they always have are just not realistic in todays global market place.

I see the idea of Right to Work as an appropriate right for government to protect as a very simple question.

In this country, does and individual have a right to their own labor, skills, and talent?

If you don't believe your labor, skill, and talent are owned by you, then Right to Work is very bad thing. If you do believe a basic right is full ownership of the labor, skills, and talent which you employ to function and earn happiness in economy, then you might think Right to Work is very important.

All this other stuff regarding the benefit or non-benefit of unions just deflect from the real questions that we should be asking ourselves in what should be the role of our government in matters related to our labor.

What do unions require of members?  10% 20%?

Anyone know what the typical union dues are?

I never knew them to be a lot, and I wasn't trying to say they were. It's just that all Unions have "X" amount of money and all that came from dues and donations and such. Just curious how big that pool is compared the difference for owners.

I was actually in a Union for about a year. They dues were about 10%... but I had no choice if I wanted to remain employed there. Other wanted the union so we changed. But the same held for me... if I didn't like it I could have walked... it works in reverse as much as the pro union people say it only works against them.

Googled it real quick.  This website has some stats. 

http://bigthreeauto.procon.org/view.additional-resource.php?resourceID=2139

I just know that the unions really hammer the guys at the bottom of the brotherhood.  Don't give them hours, still require the same payments, etc. That's why a lot of people who have been in a union only for a short while never want to go back.  It benefits tenured employees, not necessarily the best employees or the employees who work the hardest.

I was at a power plant for a school and was getting a tour. They got some guy to show us around, he didn't say much, I thought he was a janitor. We got to the control room and he was showing us a picture of the boiler... and he could not even show the flow path through it... seriously, that is like kindergarten stuff... literally like say here is the engine, then it goes to the transmission, then it goes to the wheels. Come to find out he was a control room operator been there for 20 years. IBEW That's the guy I would loose out to due to seniority. I made CRO in 3 years, supervisor in 7. I don't plan on stopping there and no union rigged the game to get me there. My wages are quite competitive.... although there is an argument to be made that if my industry was not largely union, would my wages be there... I honestly do not know the answer to that question.

That sure is a healthy "bring everyone up" sort of freedom and protection for all workers kind of stand.

How is that not any different that owners or CEO often cited by the "Occupiers"... "I got mine jack and screw you."

(I understand this isn't your thing, just speaking to the subject)

I just wish my state was a right to work state. Not because I am in a union but do not want to pay but I know plenty of people that are. My wife is in the teachers union because she has to be. Honestly though she is not very happy about it. Not that her or other teachers at her school do not work hard and teach well, but because no matter how well they teach, any changes they want to propose to the district to improve things have to go through her union. If she wanted to make a proprosal that would be great for her, and other, students - it goes to the union first and if they think it will harm the union, they toss out her proposal. It is stupid and hinders people like her and some of her colleagues trying to improve our schools.

This is my biggest experience with Unions so I will not equate it to all unions, but this combined with all the striking in my state that has driven jobs out of state and even out of country, makes me wish they did not exist. (look at hostess for the most recent example of this issue).

No, and that's how you can tell RTW laws are all political.  The only condition of employment it affects is that your employer can't force you to pay union dues as a condition of your employment.  They are still allowed to put any other kind of conditions on your employment that they want to though (such as a non-compete) even if it affects your "right to work".

And you haven't even mentioned jurisdictional disputes.  I imagine every industry could be faced with this.

In construction, for example, if wood needs to just be moved from here to there, it cannot be done by a laborer.  It has to be a carpenter because it is wood.  This adds a bunch to labor costs due to ineffiencies.

TriRsquared tried to make a point about wages.  I live in an open shop area that still has a few unions.  The open shop companies pay as well as the unions and the employees do not have to pay dues.

I think what you are going to see over the next year is the effect of the two tier system in pay, on union membership.  This is already having an affect on at least one state.  It may take a little while but it will work out.  I know a bunch of the protestors in Lanasing these days.  A bunch of them are retired and in thier early to mid 50's.  The rest one has to wonder, did they all have the day off.  Is it just a "didn't feel like going to work"day

I really have a lot ot say, but am very limited on what I can put into print.  You just never know who is reading a public forum

Do you think the cost of living is a by-product of the union presence? 

I know when we lived in a North Chicago suburb the Unions were EVERYWHERE.  If I went to the grocery store there were union checkers and union baggers and union cart attendants.  They all were older people that did that as their career.  It was weird and you rarely saw a teenager working at the grocery store.  As a result the gallon of milk and bread I bought (from Union origins themselves) were more than double what we paid in Iowa and Nebraska.  It was ridiculous how expensive everything was.

We also didn't have the options that other places had because Walmart wasn't allowed to build stores anywhere due to the Union friendly government not allowing building permits (what I was told was the reason).  Therefore the Union grocery stores were the only places we could shop.

I know the Chicago microcosm isn't the same as everywhere else, but it's the only real example of living in "union country" I've experienced first hand.

I think that statement right there says more about unions that anything else in this thread so far.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I will not I am not pro union.   I always laugh when I see the statement it is to reduce wages.  I understand that wages might be lower, but it is not an attack on wages so much as a way to reduce costs to keep the company/product competitive.  The fact is that wages are a part of the entire cost equation of running a business, and often are the largest part of running a business.  When a union is involved, often those costs are increased (through negotiations, both sides to blame) to a point when the value of the cost is less than the return from the workers.  At that point, the wages should be lowered because they do not merit those wages.  It is just effective cost cutting.